Olson v. Skateville, Inc.
- Donovan Frank
- 0:19-cv-00352
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Olson v. Skateville, Inc., Judge Leung partly granted discovery clarification but denied the remaining requests and subpoena assistance.
Aaron L. Olson, who represented himself, and Skateville, Inc.; the order also addressed a request involving the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office, which the court noted was not a party.
What happened
In Olson v. Skateville, Inc., Aaron L. Olson, representing himself, asked the court to clarify its scheduling order and earlier order, advance deposition costs, and help him meet subpoena requirements.
The court clarified that the parties may take no more than six factual depositions and two expert depositions. It denied Olson’s other clarification requests, his request to reconsider the earlier order, his request to certify that order for an immediate appeal, and his request for deposition fees and costs. It also denied his request for help obtaining mileage information from the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office or waiving mileage fees.
Judge Leung granted the discovery-costs motion in part and denied it in part, denied the subpoena-assistance motion, continued the prior consistent orders, and warned that future violations could lead to sanctions.
The detailed version
- Olson v. Skateville, Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-00352
- Donovan Frank
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
Aaron L. Olson, who represented himself, filed two motions. The first sought clarification of the scheduling order and an earlier order, assistance with discovery costs, and certification of the earlier order for an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal. The second sought assistance in meeting subpoena requirements, including obtaining the distance between a potential deponent’s address and the federal courthouse or waiving mileage fees.
Discovery Clarification and Costs
The court clarified the scheduling order to provide that the parties may take no more than six factual depositions and two expert depositions. It denied Olson’s other requests for clarification because they sought legal advice about the scheduling order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court treated Olson’s request to clarify the October 23 order as a request for reconsideration. It found that Olson had not shown the compelling circumstances required to seek reconsideration and denied that request. It also denied certification of the October 23 order for an interlocutory appeal because Olson had not shown the required legal basis, and the court concluded that an appeal would not advance the end of the litigation.
The court denied Olson’s request for witness fees, mileage fees, and court reporter fees for two depositions. It found that Olson had not shown the compelling circumstances needed for advancing those expenses, had initiated the lawsuit rather than defended a lawsuit brought by the United States, and had not shown that the two witnesses were indispensable or explained who they were, what testimony they would provide, or how they related to his allegations.
Subpoena Assistance
The court denied Olson’s motion seeking an order requiring the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office to provide mileage information or waiving mileage fees. The court noted that it was unclear whether Olson had served the Sheriff’s Office, which was not a party to the lawsuit. It also found that Olson had cited no legal authority supporting the requested relief and had not shown that compelling the Sheriff’s Office was the only way to obtain it.
Communications with the Court and Disposition
The court warned Olson that further improper email or private communications with chambers could result in restrictions on how he contacted the court and other sanctions, including striking motions or pleadings. The court ordered that Olson’s motion for clarification and assistance with discovery costs was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: it was granted only as to clarification of the scheduling order, with the six-factual-deposition and two-expert-deposition limits, and denied in all other respects. Olson’s motion for assistance to meet subpoena requirements was DENIED. The court stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and warned that violations could lead to listed remedies, including costs, fines, attorney fees, evidentiary limits, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.